Mr. David Doyle:

That was done in the context of a proposition being advanced ... I ... I ... as it's in the heading there: "Could a significant decline in housing or output be affected by an expansion of public investment?" So like, in 2005 there was the usual heightened concern about housing output, or where the housing market was going and, I can't remember who advanced the proposition that if the market did contract, that the Exchequer would be in position, because of the marvellous position the Exchequer was in, to make up for that drop in activity, which wasn't an argument that held any water. And the purpose of that note was to demonstrate that well, if ... if housing output dropped, there would be a big impact upon revenue and that if you then tried to replace, through public capital investment, the capital equivalent of 10,000 houses, there would be a huge net cost on the budget. So it wasn't a practical proposition.